HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR. v. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL, et al.

G.R. No. 191545, March 29, 2017

FACTS:

Petitioners are the heirs of the registered owner of a vast tract of land, while respondents are agrarian reform
beneficiaries under the CARP. Pursuant to the approved town plan (TownPlan/Zoning Ordinance), the subject land
was reclassified as farmlot subdivision for cultivation, livestock production, or agro-forestry. While portion of the
land was sold, more than halfremained unsold. Hence, petitioner heirs assailed the inclusion of their landholdings
from CARP.

ISSUES:

Whether the reclassification of petitioners' agricultural land as a farmlot subdivision exempts the Estate of Salas
from the coverage of the CARP

HELD:

NO, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law covers all agricultural lands, save for those not used or suitable for
agricultural activities.The reclassification of Salas' landholding into a farmlot subdivision, although effected before
Republic Act No. 6657, has not changed the nature of these agricultural lands, the legal relationships existing over
such lands, or the agricultural usability of the lands. Thus, these lots were properly subjected to compulsory
coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Law.

This case involves a land that was reclassified as a "farmlot subdivision," intended for "intensive agricultural
activities." Likewise, located away from the city center, the farmlot subdivision has not been developed into an
urban zone. When Salas' agricultural land was reclassified as a farmlot subdivision, the applicable law was Republic
Act No. 3844, as amended.

Section 166 (1) of Republic Act No. 3844 defined an agricultural land as "land devoted to any growth, including but
not limited to crop lands[.]" The law neither made reference to a "farmlot subdivision," nor did it exclude a farmlot
from the definition of an agricultural land. Not being excluded, Salas' landholdings were thus contemplated in the
definition of an agricultural land under Republic Act No. 3844. Likewise, Republic Act No. 6657 does not exclude a
farmlot subdivision from the definition of an agricultural land. Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 6657 states that
agricultural lands refer to "land devoted to agricultural activity . . . and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial, or industrial land." Section 76 expressly provides that any other definition inconsistent with Republic
Act No. 6657 has been repealed by this law.

Agricultural lands consist of lands:

(1) Devoted to agricultural activity, as defined in Republic Act No. 6657;
(2) Not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; and
(3) Prior to June 15, 1988, not classified for residential, commercial, or industrial use
under a local government town plan and zoning ordinance, as approved by the BLURB
(or its predecessors, the National Coordinating Council and the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission).

Salas' farmlot subdivision fulfills these elements.

For the first element, the lots are devoted to agricultural activity. Agricultural activity refers to the "cultivation of
the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of
such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such
farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical." Petitioners never denied the continued
existence of agricultural activity within these lots.

For the second element, it is undisputed that the lots have not been declared as mineral or
forest lands by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. No application has been
filed to declare the landholdings as mineral or forest lands, and neither has the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ever declared the properties as such.

As to the third element, the lands were not classified by the Lipa City Town Plan/Zoning
Ordinance as commercial, residential, or industrial lands prior to June 15, 1988. Rather, the
reclassification, which was approved by HLURB's predecessor agency, was that of a "farmlot
subdivision."